New York Asbestos Litigation
In New York, mesothelioma and lung cancer victims can find compensation through an experienced mesothelioma lawyer. The exposure to asbestos is often the cause of these kinds of diseases; symptoms may take decades before they show up.
Judges who oversee the caseload of NYCAL have developed a pattern of favoring plaintiffs. Recent rulings could further weaken the rights of defendants.
Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos litigation is different from a typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases include multiple defendants (companies being sued) as well as multiple law offices representing plaintiffs, as well as multiple expert witness. In addition, there are usually specific job sites that are the focus of these cases because asbestos was employed in a variety of products and many workers were exposed to it during their work. Asbestos-related victims are often diagnosed with serious illnesses such as mesothelioma or lung cancer.
New York has its own unique method of handling asbestos litigation. It is among the largest dockets across the nation. It is governed by a special Case Management Order. This CMO was created to manage large numbers of asbestos cases, involving many defendants. The judges on the NYCAL docket have experience in asbestos cases. The docket also has seen some of the largest plaintiff awards in recent history.
New York Court of Appeals made some major changes to the NYCAL docket last week. In 2015 the political system in Albany was shaken to its core when the court convicted former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver on federal corruption charges. Silver was accused of destroying every reasonable created tort reform bill that was passed by the legislature for more than 20 years, while working for the plaintiffs firm Weitz & Luxenberg.
Justice Sherry Klein Heitler retired in April 2014, citing reports that she gave the Weitz & Luxenberg firm "red carpet treatment". She was replaced by Justice Peter Moulton who implemented a number changes to the docket.
Wichita Falls asbestos lawsuits implemented a new rule in the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to present evidence that their products aren't accountable for the plaintiffs' mesothelioma. In addition, he implemented an entirely new procedure in which he did not dismiss cases until all expert witness testimony was completed. This new rule will greatly affect the speed of discovery in cases on the NYCAL docket, and could result in better outcomes for defendants.
In other New York asbestos news, an federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia recently dismissed MDL 875 and ordered all future asbestos cases to be transferred to a different district. This change should lead to an efficient and uniform treatment of asbestos cases. The MDL currently MDL is well-known for its abuse of discovery and unjustified sanctions, as well as low evidentiary standards.
Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
After years of corruption and mismanagement by the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the scandals regarding his connections to asbestos lawyers have attracted the attention of the asbestos docket that is rigged. Justice Peter Moulton is now presided over NYCAL and has already held a town hall with defense lawyers to hear complaints about a "rigged" system that favors one powerful asbestos law firm.
Asbestos lawsuits differ from the typical personal injury lawsuit, which has many of the same defendants (companies that are sued) as well as plaintiffs (people who file the lawsuits). Asbestos lawsuits also usually involve similar work sites where a large number of people were exposed to asbestos, frequently leading to mesothelioma, lung cancer or other diseases. This can result in huge cases that can block the court dockets.
To combat this issue A number of states have passed laws to restrict the types of claims that can be filed. They typically deal with issues such as medical guidelines, two-disease rules and expedited case scheduling joinders, forum shopping, punitive damages and successor liability.
Despite these laws some states still face a large number of asbestos lawsuits. In an effort to cut down on the number of lawsuits filed and resolve them faster certain courts have created special "asbestos dockets" that apply a series of different rules for these cases. The New York City asbestos court, for example requires claimants to meet certain medical criteria, has two-disease rules and uses an accelerated schedule.
Certain states have passed laws that limit the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are meant to discourage particularly harmful conduct and allow more compensation to be awarded to victims. No matter if your case is filed in a state or federal court, you should consult with a New York mesothelioma lawyer to learn more about the laws that affect your particular situation.
Alfred Sargente concentrates his practice in toxic tort and environment litigation as well as product liability and commercial litigation. He also handles general liability issues. He has a wealth of experience representing clients in cases of exposure to asbestos, Lead and World Trade Center Dust in both New York City and New Jersey. He also regularly defends cases that claim exposure to other contaminants and hazards, such as noise, mold, vibration and environmental contaminants.
Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Thousands of people have died from asbestos exposure in New York. Mesothelioma patients and their families have filed lawsuits in five counties against manufacturers of asbestos products to seek compensation. Mesothelioma lawsuits that succeed make asbestos companies accountable for their rash decisions to put profits ahead of public safety.
New York mesothelioma attorneys have experience representing clients of all backgrounds against the biggest asbestos producers in the United States. Their legal strategies could lead to an impressive settlement or verdict.
Asbestos litigation has a long history in New York, and continues to be the subject of news. The 2022 mesothelioma claim national report from KCIC lists New York as the third most popular place for mesothelioma lawsuits after California and Pennsylvania.
The judicial system of the state is shaken by the flurry of asbestos lawsuits. Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly Speaker, was found guilty in 2015 on federal corruption charges related to millions of dollars in referral fees he received from politically powerful plaintiffs' law firms Weitz & Luxenberg for handling asbestos cases. Justice Sherry Klein Heitler was replaced as NYCAL's director in the wake of the scandal. She had been in charge of NYCAL since 2008.
Justice Peter Moulton succeeded Justice Heitler as NYCAL judge. He has declared that defendants won't be able to obtain summary judgment unless they have the existence of a "scientifically valid and legally admissible research" showing that the measured dose of exposure that a plaintiff received was not enough to trigger mesothelioma. This effectively eliminates the possibility that NYCAL defendants are able to get summary judgment.
In addition, Justice Moulton has ruled that a plaintiff has to prove some injury to his or her health as a result of exposure to asbestos in order for the court to give compensatory damages. This ruling, in combination with a decision in early 2016 that holds that medical monitoring is not a tort claim makes it nearly impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to prevail on a NYCAL summary judgment motion.
The most recent case on which Judge Toal is in charge of, a mesothelioma case filed against DOVER GREENS claims that the company was in violation of asbestos work practices regulations when it renovated buildings on the Manhattan campus in October 2013 to host an event to raise money for. The lawsuit claims that DOVER GREENS did not follow CAA and asbestos NESHAP regulations because it failed to notify and inspect the EPA prior to starting renovation activities, properly remove, store and dispose of asbestos, and appointing a trained representative at renovation activities.
Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
At one point, asbestos personal injury/death cases clogged federal and state court dockets and depleted judges' judicial resources, preventing them from addressing criminal cases or other crucial civil disputes. This bloated litigation hindered the prompt compensation of victims as well as frustrated innocent families. It also caused companies to spend a lot of money on defense.
Asbestos claims are filed by people who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related diseases following being exposed to asbestos in their work environment. Most asbestos claims are filed by construction employees shipyard workers, construction workers, and other tradesmen working on buildings constructed or containing asbestos-containing materials. These individuals were exposed by asbestos fibers that were dangerous during the process of manufacturing or while working on the actual structure.
Asbestos litigation was the first mass tort. In the latter part of the 1970s and 1980s an avalanche of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits stemming from asbestos exposure filled the courts. This occurred in state and federal courts across the nation.
The plaintiffs in these lawsuits claim that their ailments resulted from the negligence of asbestos-related products' manufacture and that companies failed to warn them about the dangers of asbestos exposure. More than half of asbestos lawsuits are filed in federal courts.
In the early 1990s recognizing that the litigation was an "terrible congestion of the calendar," District Judge Jack B. Weinstein and New York Supreme Court justice Helen Freedman consolidated hundreds of state and federal cases that alleged asbestos exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard for settlement as well as pretrial and discovery purposes. Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman handled these cases and were referred to as the Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation, under the supervision of a Special Master.
A number of defendants were involved in asbestos claims in the past. The defendants were Garlock, Inc, H & A Construction Company, as successors and individually to Spraycraft Corporation, CRH, Inc. as successors to E.I. Dupont, W.R. Grace and Company Empire-Ace Insulation Manufacturing Company, Bell/Atlas Asbestos Corp., and DNS Metal Industries, Inc. were all defendants.